Critical and inconvenient truths about homosexuality, marriage, and children manage to leak out in unexpected places. If you’re not reading carefully, you may not even notice them.

Here are several brief quotes from Tuesday’s Chicago Tribune article on “gestational surrogacy” that unintentionally expose some of those inconvenient truths:

• “The number of reported babies born live in the U.S. as a result of gestational surrogacy has more than doubled in seven years.”
• “Many people with fertility problems are choosing gestational surrogacy over adoption, taking the opportunity to pass their DNA on to their child.”
• “The fact that we can have our own biological children, we had to take advantage of that.”
• Nancy Block, founder of The Center for Egg Options, stated that when “she started the agency 13 years ago there were only a handful” of homosexual couples seeking children. Now 25% of her clients are “in a same-sex relationship.”
• “More people are aware and accepting of same-sex couples wanting a family.”

Inconvenient truths exposed:

1. The single most important point in this article is one to which most people would respond, “Duh.” It’s that humans want “to pass their DNA on to their child.” The article shared the physical, emotional, and financial hardships a young couple has endured in their effort to have their own biological child. But this inadvertently reveals something else. It reveals something critical about the rights of children.
   
   If adults are willing to endure enormous hardship and heartbreak to procreate and raise children who are biologically connected to them, what does this say about the corollary rights of children? Don’t children possess an equal right or perhaps even greater right to be raised by both the mother and father whose DNA brought them into existence? Do the desires of men and women in naturally sterile, voluntary homosexual unions to have families supersede the rights of children to be raised by their biological mothers and fathers? These are not airy, angel/pin-dancing questions. How we answer these questions will have real consequences for real children.

2. “Progressives” often smugly ask the question, “How would the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ affect your marriage?” It’s a feckless but strategically effective question. As countless conservatives have replied, the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ will not affect any existing particular marriage. But neither would the legalization of polyamorous unions or incestuous unions affect any particular existing marriage. What will be affected, however, is the public understanding of what marriage is as well as issues related to sexual monogamy, adoption, children’s rights, parents’ rights, religious liberty, and public education.
   
   The dramatic increase in homosexuals seeking babies has obviously occurred  prior to the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage.” But the social approval that will follow in the wake of this radical change in the legal definition of marriage will further increase the already indefensible practice of creating intentionally motherless and fathers babies for sale to homosexuals. And it is this social approval that homosexuals most desire. It’s not hospital visitation rights, which Obama mandated in an executive order immediately after his first-term election. And it’s not state or federal benefits that they most covet. What homosexuals most covet are public affirmation of homosexuality and the eradication of any social or legal distinction between sexually complementary and homosexual unions.

3. “Progressives” suggest that the desire of same-sex couples to have a family is sufficient justification for their acquisition of children. Are those “progressives” willing to apply that principle consistently? Are they willing to say that the intense desire of three homosexual men in a polyamorous union justifies their acquisition of children? Are they willing to say that the intense desire of adult siblings who want a family without risking genetic defects justifies their acquisition of children? If not, why not? The Left proclaims that all that matters in romantic relationships is love and that the government has no business poking its gigantic proboscis into bedrooms. So, why not allow any person or numbers of persons who are “in love” to acquire children?
   
   Inquiring minds are still waiting to hear from “progressive” tub-thumpers for same-sex “marriage”—perhaps Deb Mell, Greg Harris, Pat Quinn, Ed Sullivan or Ron Sandack—why marriage should remain a union of only two persons. If marriage is wholly unrelated to reproductive potential, the prohibition of plural unions makes no sense whatsoever. The public should noisily demand that our lawmakers answer this question publicly before any vote on marriage is taken.
   
   This raises another question: When conservatives argue that the government is involved in marriage because of the reproductive potential of heterosexual unions, “progressives” foolishly ask if the government is going to ascertain the fertility of heterosexual couples before allowing them to marry. By that “reasoning,” are “progressives” suggesting that the government should ascertain the objective presence of love between homosexuals seeking to marry? The reality is the government never has had an interest in the subjective feelings of those seeking to marry. The government’s interest in marriage relates only to objective criteria connected to reproductive potential (i.e., number, age, sex, blood kinship, and marital status of partners).

4. Sterility resulting from homosexual unions is not a “fertility problem.” Unlike sterility in heterosexual unions which is a sign of a disorder, sterility in homosexual unions is absolutely normal, natural, immutable in all cases, and biologically determined. In other words, homosexual unions are by nature and design sterile.

Another unpleasant truth highlighted in the article is that according to an attorney specializing in “third-party reproductive arrangements,” “‘Illinois is one of the most surrogate-friendly states if not the most surrogate-friendly,'” largely due to the Illinois Gestational Surrogacy Act of 2005. According to the Trib, “Under the Act, when a gestational surrogate (one who is the carrier but not the egg provider) gives birth in Illinois, parenthood passes immediately to the intended parents, traditional or same sex.” The Trib reports that people “come from all over the U.S. and Europe to have their surrogate babies born in Illinois,” because “[i]n many European countries and in some states, like Michigan, surrogacy is illegal.”

Well, here’s another nice mess Illinois politicians have gotten us into.

Four Important Upcoming Events:

–> October 12th — Iron Sharpens Iron Conference for Women in Moline
(Click HERE for more info) 

–> October 23rd – IFI’s Defend Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> November 16th – Americans for Truth Banquet in Arlington Heights
(Click HERE for more info)

–> November 20th – Mandate Leadership Conference in South Chicago Heights
(Click HERE for more info)